Tag: Gun Rights

Clearing out the Tabs

A few things I don’t have time for a full post on:

Talking Turkey

Query: am I the only person in American who doesn’t have shouting political discussions at Thanksgiving? Passover, sure. When I was a kid, it wasn’t a real Passover until my Reagan Republican dad and his Roosevelt Democrat parents started talking about whether Walter Mondale was an idiot, a kook or a kooky idiot. But Thanksgiving?

The reason I ask this is that every liberal outlet on the planet is putting up some thinkpiece about “how to argue with your conservative relatives at Thanksgiving”. I’ve got news for liberals. If you’re constantly arguing politics over turkey, the problem is not them; it’s you.

Talking Turkeyshit

As you know, I’m in favor of admitting Syrian refugees, given proper vetting. But my own side is beginning to annoy the crap out of me with ever more ridiculous arguments. Viz:

Guns, Guns, Guns:

The Democrats have proposed that we ban gun sales to people who are on the terror watch list. Charles CW Cooke responds, pointing out that the terror list is an ad-hoc conglomeration of data, rumor and myth. No less than the ACLU oppose using it for … anything. There are hundreds of thousands of people on it for arbitrary or unknown reasons. And it’s hard to get off of it. And now the Democrats want to deprive citizens of a constitutional right based one it.

In times past, officials advocating the simultaneous undermining of a range of constitutional rights would have been tarred, feathered, and dumped into the sea, along with their staff, their press agents, and anyone else who saw fit to acquiesce in the scheme. A little of that spirit might be welcome here.

However the press might cast it, there are not in fact “two sides” to this issue. It is not a “tricky question.” It is not a “thorny one” or a “gray area” or a “difficult choice.” It is tyranny. Somewhere, deep down, its advocates must know this. Presumably, Chuck Schumer would not submit that those on a terror watch list should be deprived of their right to speak? Presumably, Harry Reid would not contend that they must be kept away from their mosques? Presumably, Diane Feinstein would not argue that they should be subjected to warrantless searches and seizures? Such proposals would properly be considered disgraceful — perhaps, even, as an overture to American fascism. Alas, there is something about guns that causes otherwise reasonable people to lose their minds.

As Cooke points out, people would go ape if we talked about suspending first Amendment rights for a million people because their name is on a list. The problem is that Democrats don’t see the Second Amendment as a fundamental civil liberty.

You should read the whole thing. It’a an awesome rant.

(And I’m working on Turkeys and Drumsticks post. A lot of Turkeys this year. Hard to sort them out.)

Uber and Guns

Remember, kids: according to Mother Jones, this was not a mass shooting prevented by someone with a gun:

Authorities say no charges will be filed against an Uber driver who shot and wounded a gunman who opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square over the weekend.

The driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others, Assistant State’s Attorney Barry Quinn said in court Sunday.

A group of people had been walking in front of the driver around 11:50 p.m. Friday in the 2900 block of North Milwaukee Avenue when Everardo Custodio, 22, began firing into the crowd, Quinn said.

The driver pulled out a handgun and fired six shots at Custodio, hitting him several times, according to court records. Responding officers found Custodio lying on the ground, bleeding, Quinn said. No other injuries were reported.

Why would this not qualify as a mass shooting stopped by someone with a gun? Because no one was killed and Mother Jones requires at least four deaths to qualify an event as a mass shooting. As I noted before, their criteria are very narrowly tailored almost to deliberately exclude events like this. Maybe if the cab driver had let this guy kill four people before stopping him, Mother Jones would be more impressed.

Progtard narrative misleading yet again

Let me start by saying that the death of a child is a terrible thing, but I just can’t stand the progtard’s deceptive use of tragedy to rob us of our freedoms, especially when statistics tell a different story than the one they want you to hear. From this stupid article:

About 500 American children and teenagers die in hospitals every year after sustaining gunshot wounds — a rate that climbed by nearly 60 percent in a decade, according to the first-ever accounting of such fatalities, released Sunday.

In addition, an estimated 7,500 kids are hospitalized annually after being wounded by gunfire, a figure that spiked by more than 80 percent from 1997 to 2009, according two Boston doctors presenting their findings at a conference of the American Academy of Pediatrics, held in Orlando, Fla.

Eight of every 10 firearm wounds were inflicted by handguns, according to hospital records reviewed by the doctors. They say the national conversation about guns should shift toward the danger posed by smaller weapons, not the recent fights over limiting the availability of military-style, semi-automatic rifles.

“Handguns account for the majority of childhood gunshot wounds and this number appears to be increasing over the last decade,” said Dr. Arin L. Madenci, a surgical resident at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital and one of the study’s two authors. “Furthermore, states with higher percentages of household firearm ownership also tended to have higher proportions of childhood gunshot wounds, especially those occurring in the home.”

Among homes with children, rates of gun possession ranged from 10 percent in New Jersey, for instance, to 62 percent in Montana, the researchers found.

Madenci, and his colleague, Dr. Christopher Weldon, a surgeon at Boston Children’s Hospital, tallied the new statistics by culling a national database of 36 million pediatric hospitalizations from 1997 to 2009, the most recent year for which figures are available.

During that period, hospitalizations of kids and teens aged 20 and younger from gunshot wounds jumped from 4,270 to 7,730. Firearm deaths of children logged by hospitals rose from 317 in 1997 to 503 in 2009, records showed.

Among those victims may have been 3-year-old Will McAnaul, who died on July 21, 2009 in Dayton, Ohio. The preschooler discovered his father’s loaded handgun under his parents’ bed and accidentally shot himself.

You get a whole bunch of numbers, numbers that are not adequately explained, and then they focus on one case: the tragic death of a 3 year old. Because that sob story is far more likely to appeal to their agenda than pointing out that most of those deaths and injuries happen to gangbangers under the age of 20. It is outright despicable that this author is that much of a scumbag.

Yeah, the death of this poor, young, child is a horrible tragedy, but this vile and deceptive story leaves you believing that this scenario is the norm, not the exception. Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of the killed and hurt are gangbangers doing their thing. The story doesn’t even mention these facts. This piece masquerades as news, but it is nothing but propaganda, and despicable propaganda that uses the death of a child to push a vile agenda. These people are scum, I tell you.

You can not legislate away evil or crazy.

Everybody is trying to make sense of this tragedy. Too many are so desperate for a reason other than we are dealing with someone that was mentally deranged, just like they want to pretend that evil doesn’t exist, because otherwise we have to admit that our supposed security is just ephemeral, that they are looking for anything to avoid having to grasp that we are never perfectly safe. Even the perp’s own father is searching for answers. I am afraid we will never understand, and too many will simply not accept thathere might be no good reason why this tragedy happened, because the truth is inconvenient.

We now have people that are scrambling to find a reason or motive for this horrible act. They are already trying to lay blame on the mom, a legal gun owner, because of the fact that she was a prepper. Others are saying that the killer was a loner, another troubled kid with school issues. And I am sure we will soon hear a lot more about violent music, video games, or movies are to blame, without pointing out that it is the very same people telling us we need to disarm everyone that are the biggest peddlers of this violent stuff, too. And having the discussion about how too much coverage by the stupid media of these tragedies encourages the fame seekers to copy cat, however? Nah, that we will not hear much about. Just like we will not hear much about the fact that tragedies will happen.

As expected, the two sides are at it. I don’t believe I need to point out that I think that more stupid laws that deprive people of the god given right to make sure they can defend themselves from tyrannical government are not going to stop these sorts of tragedies. Too many people, frightened and desperate to keep their security bubble, forget that in a society where the law disarms the lawful, the only people armed will be criminals and government enforcers. Things like this are not just plain stupid and serve to do nothing but confound the issues. The fact is that the pursuit of security at the cost of liberty results in less of both. Our problem is our inability to accept evil and crazy exist. It’s easier to pretend the problem is guns. You can then ban those and pretend it solves the issue. You can’t ban either evil or crazy.

Despite the fact that this young man was prevented from buying his own guns, just recently, by the existing laws, the cries for more “control” are going out. The tyrannical stupid that want to use the pretense that the problem is an inanimate object, instead of evil or crazy people, to disarm the populous are trying hard to convince everyone that bans are the answer. I do not for a second believe that these people’s main priority is as noble as they pretend it to be. They have been taking advantage of tragedies like this one for a long time to achieve their goal of disarming the populous. I find it despicable that they are capitalizing on so many people’s inability to accept the fact that there is evil and crazy in the world, and that nothing we do can stop it all, to push their agenda to disarm the citizenry.

I find exercises like this one utterly fruitless and a waste of time. Would you take anyone telling you that we should stop winter from coming seriously? What about people that tell you we should prevent all deaths? Why then the desperate need to pretend that banning guns will somehow stop evil and crazy? What magical power do Obama and the other gun grabbers have that will prevent evil or crazy from doing what it does? Are we going to ban knifes yet? Are we going to ban anything that can cause death or be used to kill?

We are going to be doing a lot of soul searching, second guessing, and Monday morning quarterbacking, along with the mourning, but the fact remains that I am afraid that we will not get any answers. That’s because we simply do not want to focus on the real issue, because there is no answer to solving or preventing evil or crazy from doing what it does. It’s much easier to blame guns, and if you are one of the few that subscribes to Mao’s axiom that power comes from the barrel of a gun and making sure that only the government has guns, it is doubly so. Here is the sad fact: people that want to do evil and cause harm will never be dissuaded by any laws. Laws only influence those that are lawful. Of course, accepting this fact undermines our quest for feeling secure.

UPDATE:: Best quote to summarize the problem here:

“After each tragic shooting spree by someone a few cards short of a full deck, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn’t do it.”

The 71 Year Old Gunslinger

The Second Amendment strikes again:

Details at the link. Basically, two men walked into an internet cafe to rob … wait a minute … internet cafe? Well, actually, the internet cafe is an internet cafe with a casino. You can see the slot machines in one of the reverse angles. It’s a sort of legalized state-sanctioned gambling.

Anyway, these two bozos walked into an internet cafe, guns drawn, ready to rob. But 71 year-old Samuel Williams had a conceal-carry. He calmly took his gun out and opened fire, chasing them off, probably yelling after them to get a haircut. He hit both of them but not fatally. You could argue that means he needs some more time at the range but 95% of us would have been pissing ourselves the whole time so I’m inclined to respect his obviously enormous balls.

Also, there is no question no charges will be brought. This is pretty much the textbook definition of Stand Your Ground.

Update: My absolute favorite part of this video is watching these guys trip over each other as they try to run for the door. Man, we have a low quality of criminal these days.

Gun Owners of America Not Happy With Romney

I’m a member of GOA. Decided that the NRA long-ago stopped representing my best interests in favor of serving their own political and corporate interests, so I took my money elsewhere. As a member of GOA, I get email alerts at least a couple of times a week about specific legislation or candidates that threaten 2nd Amendment rights, which always have a link to their “Political Action” page that automates writing your Representatives and Senators. I don’t remember ever getting an alert that didn’t have such a link…..before today.

The following is an email I just got from GOA. No action required or requested. It’s just informational. Take it with however many grains of salt you wish. I take it with a couple of shovels-full myself.

Mitt Romney and Gun Control

Thursday, 29 September 2011 13:12
Written by Tim Macy

In the recent Presidential debate, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann said America’s voters did not need to “settle” for the moderate candidate.  Amen to that.

And gun owners do NOT want candidates who talk out of both sides of their mouths.

As the Gun Owners of America’s Board of Directors looks at the Republican candidates running to unseat radical anti-gun President Obama, we see several who have strong pro-gun backgrounds.  Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman all have solid pro-gun records and deserve a hard look from pro-gunners.

At least one frontrunner candidate stands in contrast with a decidedly mixed record on the gun issue.  While Mitt Romney likes to “talk the pro-gun talk,” he has not always walked the walk.

“The Second Amendment protects the individual right of lawful citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly support this essential freedom,” Romney assures gun owners these days.

But this is the same Mitt Romney who, as governor, promised not to do anything to “chip away” at Massachusetts’ extremely restrictive gun laws.

“We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them,” he said during a gubernatorial debate.  “I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

Even worse, Romney signed a law to permanently ban many semi-automatic firearms.  “These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense,” Romney said in 2004. “They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people.”

Romney also spoke in favor of the Brady law’s five day waiting period on handguns.  The Boston Globe quotes Romney saying, “I don’t think (the waiting period) will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”

Mitt Romney doesn’t seem to understand the meaning of “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

And that makes it all the more troubling that Romney refuses to answer GOA’s simple candidate questionnaire.  In our more than 36 years of experience, a candidate is usually hiding anti-gun views if he or she refuses to come clean in writing with specific commitments to the Second Amendment.

Today, Romney may be a favorite “Republican Establishment” candidate of the national press corps.  But that is exactly what gun owners DON’T need in a new President. We need someone who will stand by true constitutional principles and protect the Second Amendment.

I could not agree any more strongly. Romney is the Second Coming of McCain, and if Republicans choose this RINO after McCain being the main reason we have Obama now, then all pretense of a distinction between the left and right wing of the establishment bird will be completely blown out of the water.

I, personally, am not thrilled with any of the choices currently presented on the Republican slate, but none carry so much non-conservative baggage as Romney in my estimation. Doesn’t matter what letter follows the name of any candidate or elected official, the establishment arm of both parties has nothing less than the destruction of the American fabric that has made this country great for over two centuries. Don’t be a part of it. Keep Romney, or any candidate that you perceive as a RINO or less than committed to preserving what is left, and restoring what’s already been stolen, from our constitutional, federalist, republican birthright, on the roles of the unemployed next November.


Gun Grabbers


Police officers in New Mexico can take guns away from drivers who pose no threat. The state supreme court ruled on May 20 that “officer safety” is more important than any constitutional rights a gun-owning motorist might have. The ruling was handed down in deciding the fate of Gregory Ketelson who was a passenger in a vehicle pulled over on November 13, 2008.

During the stop, Hobbs Police Officer Miroslava Bleau saw a 9mm handgun on the back seat floorboard. Ketelson and the driver of the car were ordered out and away from the car while Officer Shane Blevins grabbed the gun. The officers later learned that Ketelson, as a convicted felon, could not legally possess a firearm. The court, however, only considered whether the officers acted properly in taking the gun before they had any reason to suspect Ketelson, who was entirely cooperative during the encounter, of committing a crime.

This is the same shit logic that’s been used in Philadelphia where citizens legally carrying firearms have been harassed by police (and now hit with BS charges for showing up the cops on their legal ignorance).

The Court has demonstrated a stunning misunderstanding of the very basis of Constitutional liberties. Our rights are fundamental, not conditional. Our right to bear arms can only be taken away under certain circumstances, such as being a convicted criminal. There can not be an a priori assumption the police can violate our rights any time they think there might be trouble. You open that door and the entire law enforcement establishment will thunder through it.

The state argued that anyone with a gun should be considered “armed and dangerous”. This is an absurd statement. There are tens of millions of guns in this country and only a tiny tiny fraction are ever used to commit a crime (less than 1 in 10,000 to commit a murder). A car is more dangerous in the hands of a citizen than a gun.

I’m getting very worried about our civil liberties. A few weeks ago, Indiana decided that it was illegal to resist a warrantless search. Then SCOTUS ruled 8-1 that officers hearing the sounds of (maybe) illegal materials being destroyed justified a warrantless search. The PATRIOT Act was reauthorized with no protections for civil liberties, despite the valiant attempts of Rand Paul.

The problem is that we’ve had three Presidents in a row — Clinton, Bush and Obama — who have nominated judges that defer to government authority. It’s been a slow path but we’ve finally reached the destination: a judiciary that never wants to rock the boat, that errs on the side of authority and against liberty, that sees fundamental civil liberties as almost quaint. And given the rhetoric out there and the bizarre passion of politicians to look “though on crime/drugs/terrorism” in their judicial appointments, I see little hope of reversing this trend.

Hold on your butts (and guns). We’re in for a bumpy ride.